Topic: The Defamation of (past) President Carter Posted: 18 January 2007 at 4:23pm

This is my immediate response to Stu Bykofsky's (Philadelphia Daily News) review of a book I have not yet read, Jimmy Carter's ‘Palestine, Peace not Apartheid’.I quote Bykofsky (in blue) and provide the URL below.

Stu Bykofsky entitled his article:

“Carter's book approaches anti-Semitism”

To those who equate Israel’s policies with Semitism, a criticism of those policies would seem necessarily a step in the direction of anti-Semitism.This is understood.

“SO JIMMY CARTER wrote a book and it's called "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid." In it, the globe-trotting, sanctimonious moralizer - whom I had admired only as an ex-president - erases the line between honest criticism and dishonest advocacy.”

And in this review, one might say that Stu Bykofsky at times seems to erase the line between honest criticism of ideas and hoary ad hominem attacks.

But that might only give Israelocentric bull-dozers in yarmulkes more reason to encircle his house.

“Carter heaps blame on tiny, terror-tortured Israel for the unrest with its massive Arab neighbors, while blaming the U.S. for being "submissive" to Israel.”

Seymour Hersh, in his “Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy” has already told us who is tiny and who is massive in that little powder keg of a region.

“When he {Carter} insinuates … "

Note the assertion, or inference, in this case, that Carter “insinuates.”It’s all so very subtle.Apparently it cannot be proven that Carter has actually said, or stated anything of the sort, but an “insinuation” suffices for argument’s sake.

“When he {Carter} insinuates that Jews - 2 percent of the U.S. population - control the government, the media, Wall Street, etc., it's the hoary anti-Semitism you expect to find on a KKK Web site, not in a book by an American president.”

When Stu Bykofsky intuits that Jimmy Carter is insinuating, he writes sensational and emotionally charged sentences. They should be either accepted or rejected for what they are.

“In interviews, Carter said his purpose was to ignite public discussion about America's Mideast policy.”

Good.

“Instead, he touched off a raging debate about the truth and honor of his book.”

He has done both.

“American Jews, and other friends of Israel, have attacked Carter's book as being so one-sided and so awash in half-truths {sic} and quarter-truths {sic} as to approach actual anti-Semitism. He might have expected that.”

I would think he probably did expect it.Perhaps then, as he has suggested in his interviews, by means of public debate, “whole” truth, whatever that may be, shall be made clear.

“He might not have expected some of his friends would rip the book.”

Mr. Carter is well schooled in the vagaries and uncertainties of politics.

“A devastating rebuke came from Dr. Kenneth Stein, of the democracy-promoting CarterCenter, founded by the former president. Resigning in disgust as a Middle East Fellow in December, Stein wrote that Carter's book "is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."”

I trust Dr. Stein will find a job elsewhere.

“Stein sat in on some Carter meetings with Mideast leaders "and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book."”

Let’s ask the Mideast leaders (and the writers of their memoirs) with whom they agree: Stein or Carter.Then we will know whose notes are most accurate.

“Summing up, Stein said, "Being a former president does not give one a unique privilege to invent information."”

As something in the nature of a coup de gras, he might have added that that privilege seems restricted to current presidents.

“Last week, 14 members of a CarterCenter advisory board resigned to protest the lopsided book. Some had served in the Carter administration.”

I’m sure they will find jobs elsewhere.

“Another former admirer, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, criticized Carter's command of the facts, his tilted analysis and even his tone.”

One would expect no less from the pusillanimous and, in my opinion, rather likeable Mr. Dershowitz.

“Having ignited the discussion, Carter declined BrandeisUniversity's invitation to debate the book with Dershowitz.”

You said that Carter desired to ignite “public” discussion.I don’t read that as his having agreed to a chat with Dershowitz.

“"There is no need for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine," Carter told the Boston Globe.”

Ouch!Go Jimmy (and pass the popcorn)!

“In that dismissive quote, Carter dropped the mask of humility to reveal the cold face of arrogance.”

Oh, please.He is an ex-president and Ambassador at Large.If he doesn’t want to enter an arena to have a tug with a strong-jawed law professor from Hahvud, it is hardly indicative of arrogance or masks falling or, like, whatever.

Evidently, he has listened.He once also had an entire State Department at his disposal and was Commander in Chief of a rather impressive war machine.He wrote a book and found a publisher.Get used to it.

“Dennis Ross, President Clinton's envoy to the Middle East, wrote in the New York Times last week about what appeared {sic} to be Carter lifting two maps from Ross' book, "The Missing Peace." Ross doesn't care about the use of the maps, but wrote that "Mr. Carter's presentation badly misrepresents {sic} the Middle East proposals advanced by President Bill Clinton in 2000, and in so doing undermines... efforts to bring peace to the region."”

This is one man’s opinion and it I think it deserves to be heard.But, it seems to me, a great deal more than Carter’s rather late and alleged “misrepresentation” has gone into undermining efforts to “bring” peace to the region, whether by Clinton or anyone else.Has Clinton himself weighed in on the matter?

“In reading the book, several "tells" signaled Carter's bias to me.”

Finally, we have something to analyze.

“When blame falls on Arab shoulders, Carter's tone is often passive, such as reporting in 2000, "Peace negotiations at Camp David break down," without saying Arafat had rejected a deal that gave him more than 90 percent of what he wanted.”

Point noted.

“But when a second intifada breaks out {sic}, Carter casts specific blame on Jews, by writing it began "After Ariel Sharon visits the TempleMount."

You make an intifada sound like a flu virus that inexplicably “breaks out.”Anyway, an intifada did follow immediately thereafter.If Carter had been truly wearing a kaffiya, he might have said that the intifada broke out after Ariel Sharon, of Sabra and Shatilla fame, evidently decided, for reasons known primarily to him and to his advisors, to consciously provoke an uprising by taking a no doubt perfectly legal stroll through the precincts of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.Carter doesn’t do that.He writes only that Sharon “visits” the TempleMount.

“In one historical passage Carter writes, "Although Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman Times... "”

Please cite the entire quotation in context.Is Carter here describing, or focusing upon inter-Arab conflicts between Christians and Muslims?

“Astonishingly, Carter omits that Jews lived on that land before there was either Christianity or Islam and always had a presence there.”

You seem easily astonished.

“Does this small slip {sic} reveal Carter's Juden frei {Jew-free} state of mind?

No. At this point, it does not.At least it doesn’t to me.Not anymore than your suspicious question and attribution of a so-called “slip” on Carter’s part reveals your state of mind.

“Carter doesn't explain that when the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hamas and Hezbollah "are seen to be struggling against Israeli occupation of Palestine," the terrorists define "Palestine" as Israel, not just the West Bank and Gaza.”

So there are things you would like Carter to better explain.Suggest these things, as legitimate criticism, for his next book.

“Carter's dishonesty {sic} extends to using the word "apartheid" in the title. That is an insult not just to Jews, but to the millions of South African blacks who lived under its terror.”

Stu Bykofsky doesn’t explain why Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” is supposed to be insulting to [all?] Jews and South African blacks and gives us a big mouthful of swirling, gushing emotions to wash down his slander of Carter as “dishonest.”At any rate, and as it has been reported, Carter has explained his use of the term.

“Carter eventually explains he doesn't mean that kind of apartheid; he means economic apartheid, and the terrorist-thwarting wall between Israel and the occupied territory.”

To some in the public audience, even if he did mean that kind of apartheid, he wouldn’t be that far off.

“He well knows that Arabs living among Jews in Israel are citizens and have greater freedom than Arabs in any Arab state. But he doesn't say that.”

Consider sending him a list of things you expect him to say next time around.

“Carter catalogs every {sic} Jewish abuse, but soft-pedals suicide-bombing Muslims. Using a classic double standard, he blames Israel for not living up to the highest standards of democracy while not demanding the Palestinians live up to even the lowest.”

If this is true, then this is a legitimate criticism.But thus far in this article, it seems to me, you have done little more than to go on an emotional rampage and to bring unfounded accusations against President Carter.

“That's why some feel Carter's book approaches anti-Semitism.”

See opening statement for additional logic.At any rate, some people are overly sensitive and I am wary of “feelings” passing as public discourse.

“I have been called an anti-Semite," [Carter] said. "I have been called a bigot. I have been called a plagiarist. I have been called a coward. Those kind of accusations, they concern me, but they don't detract from the fact the book [Palestine, Peace not Apartheid] is accurate and is needed.”

In another post, I pasted a story from my local newspaper about a palestinian american friend of my who recently went with a jewish medical delegation to Jerusalem. Interestingly, the way she was treated there confirmed many of the claims made in Carter's book, Palestine, Peace or Apartheid.

I read (former) President Carter's book and many things he said are easy to confirm, others are not because they took place behind closed doors. Yet, it is easy to see the after affects of what happened in those meetings behind closed doors.

I respect Carter for doing what no former president has ever done. Talk about what is really going on. I suspect the only reason he felt safe to do so now is he is nearing the end of his life and so it is more difficult for anyone to hurt him politically, financially, or in any other way. Personally for the critics of his book, I think the truth hurts and that is why they try to defame him.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.